Yakov Petrovich Terletskii (1912‒1993)
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
134 Hiroshi ICHIKAWA Materialist Perestroika of Quantum Dynamics and Soviet Ideology: Yakov Petrovich Terletskii (1912‒1993) Hiroshi ICHIKAWA* Abstract Yakov Petrovich Terletskii (1912‒1993), a professor in theoretical physics at Moscow State University wrote extensively on the “philosophical” issues of modern physics, particularly in the first half of the 1950s. Outside Russia, his name is rarely mentioned. Nevertheless, it is likely that he has been regarded as a “cat’s-paw” of the ideological apparatus of the Marxist state. May we share such a view even now, in spite of the major changes in the historiography of Soviet science we have already seen in the last few decades? Thanks to the progress of the study based on formerly classified documents in various Russian archives, we see that the totalitarian model that had been applied to the understanding of Soviet society for a long time rapidly lost its popularity and was replaced with a more pluralistic view. This study reexamines and reevaluates the thoughts and activities of Yakov Terletskii from the viewpoint of today’s understanding of the historiography of Soviet science. It provides a new analysis, connecting the global quest of physicists for a new approach to quantum dynamics to the local context particular to the Soviet Union. Keywords: Yakov Terletskii, Modern Physics, Quantum Dynamics, the Copenhagen Interpretation, the Soviet Union, Ideology, Dialectical Materialism. Robespierrists! Anti-Robespierrists! For pity’s sake, simply tell us what Robespierre was. [Marc Bloch, The Historian’s Craft. trans. by Peter Putnam (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1954), p. 140.] 1. Introduction Independently from Ethan Pollock,1 the author of this paper has taken notice of the consequences of an ideologically charged campaign under the guise of a series of academic “discussions” initiated in various fields of science in Postwar Soviet Union, as * Professor at the Graduate School of Integrated Arts and Sciences, Hiroshima University. 1‒7‒1, Kagami-yama, Higashi-Hiroshima 739‒8521, Japan. E-mail: [email protected] This paper is a revised and expanded version of a paper that the author published in Japanese; ICHIKAWA Hisroshi, “Yakovu Teruretsukii wo go-Zonji desu-ka? (Do you know Yakov Terletskii?),” Arena, vol. 20 (2017), 51‒66. The author thanks Prof. Vladimir Pavlovich Vizgin, Prof. Chieko Kojima, Prof. Kôji Kanayama, and Mr. Nobumichi Ariga for their assistances and useful advices. 1 Ethan Pollock, Stalin and the Soviet Science Wars (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006). HISTORIA SCIENTIARUM Vol. 28‒2 (2019) Materialist Perestroika of Quantum Dynamics and Soviet Ideology 135 one of the important opportunity for the cultivation of “the Cold War climate” among Soviet physicists that objectively drove them to Cold War scientific and technological projects such as nuclear weapon development.2 Soon after this “discussion” began in the field of philosophy in 1947, and then subsequently in the field of physics, Vladimir Kessenikh (1903‒1970), Vasilii Nozdryov (1913‒1995), and several other professors and teachers at the Faculty of Physics (Fizicheskii fakul’tet; Fizfak) of the Moscow State University (MSU), who called themselves “patriotic and materialistic physicists,” launched an attack on leading physicists such as Grigorii Landsberg (1890‒1957), Pyotr Kapitsa (1894‒1984, a Nobel Prize laureate in 1978), and Igor Tamm (1895‒1971, a Nobel Prize laureate in 1958), condemning them for their “idealism” and “cosmopolitanism or worship of foreign science.”3 What is astonishing here for the historians of science, especially of modern physics, is the fact that the physicists themselves, neither the philosophers nor the Party ideologues, criticized quantum dynamics for its “idealist distortion” of physics. However, could there have been any genuine physicists who were indifferent to quantum dynamics and the principle of relativity by the second half of the 1940s? Indeed, some “patriotic and materialistic physicists” only outwardly condemned “idealism” in physics.4 Nevertheless, their criticism against the “idealist” nature of quantum dynamics was so heated that the exchange of words between them and the modern physicists they were accusing presented itself as “a kangaroo court.” Among such accusers, Yakov Petrovich Terletskii (1912‒1993), a professor at MSU in charge of theoretical physics, who produced a number of “philosophical” papers on modern physics,5 attracts our attention. Although he 2 Ichikawa, Hiroshi, Reisen to Kagaku-Gijutsu: Sorenpô 1945‒1955 (The Cold War, Science and Technology: The Soviet Union, 1945‒1955) (Kyoto: Minerva Shobô, 2007). See Chapter 2 in this book (99‒ 153): Here, Ichikawa demonstrates that the social background of this dispute was rooted in the jealousy and antagonism of a group of physicists against another group of physicists, which accumulated due to distortion in the Soviet academic regime before and during the war. In spite of that, the initiators had no further intentions other than ideological restraint and unification in the occasion of the outbreak of the Cold War. A large-scale “academic discussion” campaign beginning in 1947 with “the philosophical dispute” explosively released these complaints in ideological terms from some groups of scientists in a warped form. 3 V.P. Vizgin, “Yadernyi shchit v “tridtsatiletnei voine” fizikov s nevezhestvennoi kritikoi sovremennykh fizicheskikh teorii,” Uspekhi Fizicheskikh Nauk, vol. 169 (1999): p. 1372. 4 For example, Sergei Vasil’ev (1904‒1999), a professor at MSU and supporter of the “patriotic and materialistic physicists” in postwar academic “discussions,” was in turn rebuked by the dean of the Faculty of Chemistry of MSU for his “double-dealing” attitude towards “idealistic” physical theories. Even while he outwardly condemned “idealism” in physics, he taught students the “idealistic” theories of Niels Bohr (1885‒ 1962), Ernest Rutherford (1871‒1937), Linus Pauling (1901‒1994), and Erwin Schrödinger (1887‒1961) in his lectures. [Rossiiskii gosudarstvennyi arkhiv sotsal’no-politicheskoi istorii (RGASPI). Fond (F.). 17, Opis’ (Op.). 125, Delo (D.) 618. 176] 5 Except for works categorized as “commentary,” from 1948 to 1956 he published six articles for the journal, Voprosy Filosofii; (1) Ya.P. Terletskiy, “Zamechanie v diskussii o prirode fizicheskogo znaniya: Obsuzhdeniye stat’i M.A. Markova (Remark in the Discussion on the Nature of the Knowledge of Physics: The Discussion on the Paper by M.A. Markov),” Voprosy Filosofii, no. 3 (1948), 228‒231; (2) Ya.P. Terletskiy, “Problemy razvitiya kvantovoi teorii (Problems of the Development of Quantum Theory),” Voprosy Filosofii, 136 Hiroshi ICHIKAWA was an able physicist, it would be hard to argue that his name is well known. In any historiography of modern physics, we have difficulty in finding his name6 except within the works written in Russian.7 However, Max Jammer’s well-received work on the history and philosophy of quantum dynamics is comprehensive enough to mention Terletskii. His name is cited when Jammer refers to the early responses to the idea of a young American physicist, David Bohm (1917‒92), who proposed a new approach to quantum dynamics (which I will discuss below). Terletskii was one of the first physicists to express his approval of Bohm’s idea. Jammer states, “It is therefore not surprising that first favorable criticism of Bohm’s idea came from those sources who for one reason or another sympathized with such ideological consideration.”8 As seen here, the thoughts and activities of Terletskii were associated with Soviet ideology. Is such an interpretation still correct? In this study, by rereading the work of Terletskii, examining newly declassified documents and reviewing other materials, the author reexamines the thought and activities of Terletskii, who is apt to be assigned the role of a villain in the Soviet history of physics. 2. Life and Activities of Yakov Terletskii To commemorate his 60th birthday, an article reviewing his career and academic contributions was issued in a bulletin, Istoriya i Metodologiya Estestvennykh Nauk (History no. 5 (1951), 51‒61; (3) Ya.P. Terletskiy, “Ob odnoy iz knig akademika L.D. Landau i ego uchenikov (On One of the Books of Academician L.D. Landau and his Students),” ibid., 190‒194; (4) Ya.P. Terletskiy, “O soderzhanii sovremennoi fizicheskoi teorii prostranstva i vremeni (On the Content of the Modern Physical Theory of Space and Time),” Voprosy Filosofii, no. 3 (1952), 191‒197; (5) Ya.P. Terletskiy, “Ob izlozhenii osnov spetsial’noi teorii otnositel’nosti (On the Presentation of the Foundations of the Special Theory of Relativity),” Voprosy Filosofii, no. 4 (1953), 207‒212; (6) Ya.P. Terletskiy, “O vzaimoprevrashchayemosti elementarnykh chastits (On the Interconversion of Elementary Particles),” Voprosy Filosofii, no. 2 (1956), 164‒166. 6 For example, even Alexei Kojevnikov, who published a political and social history of Soviet physics, refers to his name only in the connection of the so-called “Copenhagen Mission” case (which I mention below) in which in 1945 Terletskii was dispatched to Copenhagen to obtain information on nuclear weapon development. See Alexei Kojevnikov, Stalin’s Great Science: The Times and Adventures of Soviet Physicists (London: Imperial College Press, 2004), pp. 149‒150. Slava Gerovitch, who attracted a lot of interest because of his fresh approach to the history of Soviet science, refers to the name of Terletskii in connection with his dismissal from the editorial board